Rittman and Rittman (No 3)

In *Rittman and Rittman (No 3)* [2011] FamCA 228, Barry J of the Family Court of Australia considered an application by the husband for indemnity costs against the wife, who opposed the order and sought any costs awarded be limited to those causally connected to adverse findings against her. The husband asserted that sections 117AB and 117(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) applied, arguing that the case was exceptional due to the wife's diminished credibility.

The court was required to determine whether to grant indemnity costs, and if so, to what extent, considering the provisions of sections 117AB and 117(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to assess whether the wife had made false allegations or statements within the meaning of section 117AB, applying the *Briginshaw* standard of proof, and whether previous findings could be revisited to establish this higher standard. The court also had to consider the relevant factors under section 117(2A) in determining the appropriate costs order, including the parties' financial circumstances and the wife's conduct throughout the proceedings.

Barry J found that indemnity costs were appropriate but in a lesser amount than sought by the husband. The court determined that three false statements had been established to the *Briginshaw* standard, thus enlivening the jurisdiction under section 117AB. While acknowledging that the wife's credibility had been impugned by adverse findings and that her conduct had permeated the proceedings, the court also had regard to the fact that an order for full indemnity costs would significantly deplete the wife's property settlement. Consequently, the court reduced the indemnity costs to 60 per cent of the husband's total costs.

In final settlement of the costs of and incidental to the hearing, the Respondent Mother, Ms Rittman, was ordered to pay the costs, including reserved costs, of the Applicant Father, Mr Rittman, fixed at $225,000.